Thursday, February 4, 2010

Can the Web save newspapers?

Comparing news to music is a woefully inadequate
justification for a newspaper attempting to charge for its content. iTunes was
successful because it listened to what both artists and their fans wanted - for
fans to be able to buy as little as they want, not just want the producers
pushed. If I like "a song or two," it used to be that I'd still be
forced to buy the whole album, or just not buy anything at all. Today, the
artist can get a sale because someone can go ahead and just buy a song or two.

But the issue is that a song is a single inimitable
thing. If I want to listen to Stevie Wonder sing Isn't She Lovely? I can't
substitute that with Frankie Lymon singing Why Do Fools Fall In Love? They are
two different songs. News is a totally different thing - if a plane crashes,
who owns that information? Certainly not the New York Times, or Reuters or
Associated Press. News is often public. If I'm walking down the street and
witness a collision between a taxi and a streetcar, is there someone standing
by to charge me to watch the emergency crews respond? Life isn't owned by
anyone who can charge for it.

What, exactly, does a newspaper company sell?
"News"? Stevie Wonder doesn't sell "music", and you can get
music anywhere. Stevie Wonder sells "Stevie Wonder's music", and
there's only one place on earth where you can get Stevie Wonder's music - from
Stevie Wonder. That's why he can sell.

Let's cut to the chase - no newspaper is going
to make money attempting to charge people for news that is readily available
everywhere else for free.

So, if a newspaper company is going to survive,
what is it going to sell? It's got to sell something that no one else is
selling. What is the New York Times selling?

something
for New York Times fans to read

opinion
about what's happening in the news

a
target market for advertisers who wish to reach the kind of people who
read the New York Times

What must, therefore, come forward, is the opinion
of New York Times writers. The analysis, the insight, the punditry, those
who speak to the issues with the New York Times tone and culture and voice and
style. You can't get that from the Wall Street Journal or USA Today.

This opinion can be disseminated on paper but,
again, why bother? Paper production carries with it too
much cost to be recovered before profit kicks in. People want information when,
where and how they want it, and that is increasingly via electronic and mobile
media.

As such, I would suggest that the answer to the
question of the Star article is "no", the web cannot save newspapers
because the web is electronic media that competes squarely with print media.
The segment of the population who still values sitting in the living room on a
Sunday afternoon going through the Sunday paper is shrinking, and that's
driving newspapers' shrinking revenues.

Nor should news outlets bother even asking the
question. The paper is not to be saved -- it's the opinion of the
news that's to be disseminated via media.

And, I've said it before and will say it again - news
outlets must value as a strength their expertise in and obligation to provide
legitimacy to news. It's one thing to get a tweet saying "Michael
Jackson died," but we all waited to hear from "a real news
source" that it was in fact true. News outlets have built a system of
fact-checking that is second to none. We, society, need to know that what's
happening is what really is happening. Anyone can start a rumour and, these
days, get that rumour around the world and back in literally minutes. Today,
more than ever, we need systematic rigour to confirm that some news is in fact
reality, truth, or at least verifiable.

Standard Oil understood that, while the window of
lamp oil demand was closing, motor oil demand was opening up a big door. They
sold oil, and would sell to whomever was buying. Nearly 100 years after the
breakup of Standard Oil, its two largest pieces, Exxon and Mobil, are one
again, and still relevant after so many eras have come and gone.

News services have

the
skills and infrastructure to help us determine what is news, and

the
experience to help us interpret what to think about it.

The press is important because freedom of the press
is necessary to a free society. The "press" must transform to stay
relevant, and continue to contribute to, support and protect freedom.

1 comment:

Are Bloggers making News Less relevant online? as i read various news sources and find them 'vanilla' compared to other sources.We have seen more and more papers have staff/bloggers, but must be careful not to bad mouth anyone who may advertise.